Supreme Court - Daily Orders
N. Lakshmi (Died) Thr. Her Lrs vs M/S Narne Constructions Private ... on 29 November, 2024
Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy
1
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19351-
19352/2021
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 16-12-2019 in
ASMP No. 318/2017 in AS No.720/2019 and 16-12-2019 in ASMP No.
2046/2017 in AS No. 720/2019 passed by the High Court for The State
of Telangana at Hyderabad]
N. LAKSHMI (DIED) THR. HER LRS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S NARNE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s)
(IA No. 154904/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 29-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vijayakumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR
Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv.
Mr. Thomas D., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv.
Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR
Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C) No.19351/2021 Heard Mr. Vijayakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners (plaintiffs). Also heard Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (defendant). Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA JOSHI Date: 2024.12.03
2. 14:17:57 IST Reason: The challenge here is to the order passed by the High Court on 16.12.2019 condoning the delay of 1003 days in filing the appeal to challenge the decree of specific performance granted in the O.S. 2 No.2943 of 2006, in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. It is submitted that a cryptic order without indicating any reason has been passed to condone such a huge delay. More particularly, the plaintiffs who had secured the decree and put the decree to the execution, were not heard before allowing the delay condonation application.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the counter affidavit to the delay condonation application was in the case record. Therefore, the impugned order should not be considered as an exparte order.
5. If the Court would have adverted to the said counter affidavit and then considered the application for condonation of delay, the situation would have different. But here, we are looking at a cryptic order condoning the huge delay of 1003 days by the Learned Judge, without giving any reason for such condonation.
6. In the above facts, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 and remit the matter back to the High Court. The High Court should take on board the delay condonation application, then afford opportunity to both sides. A reasoned order should then be passed. It is ordered accordingly.
7. As the matter is pending since long, the parties are at liberty to request the High Court to dispose of the application for condonation of delay, expeditiously.
8. In view of the above, the matter stands disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. 3 SLP(C) No.19352/2021
In this matter as the High Court has passed the interim order on the same date i.e. 16.12.2019, the Decree Holder is at liberty to move the High Court for vacating the interim order. The matter is, accordingly disposed of.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(GEETA JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR